Agnostic.com

43 4

ISN’T THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF CHRIST, HIS EMBRACING OLD TESTAMENT TEACHINGS?
Jesus Christ had a great deal of appeal and credibility to the masses that follow him to this day. But doesn’t the fact that he embraced the Old Testament’s twisted teachings including the portrait of a mean, vengeful, jealous God, destroy his credibility? If Christ had chosen to distance himself from the Old Testament teachings, wouldn’t he have been more credible. (Isn’t it possible that he did but that the conservatives within the church hierarchy, chose to tell a different story?)

Dreamrider 6 Sep 10
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

43 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Gibberish = gibberish whether capitalized or not = geebush jeehobah yhwh ghostholes....just another alleged gawd .....nothing there to prEy to

6

Since there is no credible evidence that the Jesus Christ of the Bible ever existed, I'd say that was the biggest threat.

I had a conversation with a person where he said something like, "The proof of God is the fact that Jesus Christ walked the earth." I then pointed out that there is no actual evidence that Jesus Christ of the Bible ever existed. He was shocked that I didn't believe there was evidence. He pointed out that it's "all over the internet" and that he could find me such evidence with little effort.

I told him to do so. After about a month of my pointing out the logical falacies and obvious assumptions of the "evidence" he provided, I haven't heard about it again. It apparently shook his world that he actually couldn't find what he thought should be easily available; evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ outside of the Bible. Realizing it was not easily available and that his assumptions were so easily disproven, he's apparently started to question his faith.

He also stopped having conversations with me. Small price to pay to put a chip in the armor of religion.

The bible is ONLY evidence of fraud by the Vatican inventing the so called 4 of many "gospels" 800 years after Caesar NEVER taxed Bethlehem born people to travel there to pay taxes....100% bullshit = bible stories back dated 4 years WRONG ....real King Herod died 4 bce making the lies of a 1st xmas impossible 4 years later

Your work there is done...
Some people are unabl to break their conditioning, those are best alone as for many of them the loss of their religion may destroy them. Mental health issues.
Others who can think are the best, and as you have done, introduce some reasoning and let them break their conditioning.

5

Oof...
Well, we don’t even know for sure if he existed. I think that should be resolved first.
Then we need to stop making him white...
Then we can discuss your questions about the Magical Zombie Rabbi
For now watch this.....

Too funny !

4

Jesus did not reject the god of The Hebrew Scriptures because he would have alienated potential Jewish converts. However, IF Jesus existed, it is a fallacy to assume that he said what is said that he said, especially in light of no concurrent accounts of what he said.

Yup the alleged carpenter rabbi jesua left no doors or furniture but Jimmy Carter has for HABITAT home owners

4

The biggest threat to the credibility of Christ, the irrefutable threat to it, is the existence of the 1st council at Nicea in 321 or whenever it was. They INVENTED orthodox christianity and mary and jesus at that event. Then they got together later and INVENTED the New Testament of their bible.

4

The person, who apparently existed as a person was Jewish and their Talmud holy book is the old testament so that was his background as a jew

4

No one knows for sure what the actual Jesus did or said. He did not have a scribe following him around taking notes. All we have are redacted, copies, of copies of copies of copies... of often redacted writings, written years after he lived, by people who never knew this person, and based on nothing but tales, and supposed revelations, about him.

Most "Christians" are actually Paulists and don't even know it. Whoever Paul was, or whoever wrote as this person, is what most of Christianity is based on. And, the trinity nonsense is based on the writings of John--how many years later? It was he who turned this person into not only a god, but the God.

I think there was a historical figure, likely named Jesus, who was a Jew, absolutely believing in the God of the Jews, but thinking religious leaders of his day had become corrupt. This person had a following and was likely put to death; and after his death became something that is in conflict with who he actually was.

But, it does not matter because the Bible is so full on contradictions, different people can read it and draw different conclusions--and all of them can quote scriptures to back up their beliefs. I learned well how to just ignore that which didn't fit well with what I was being taught.

This said, one of the biggest problems I had as a believer was in trying to reconcile the god of the OT with Jesus and the god of the NT. I investigated my doubts rather than ignoring them and closing my mind to cold hard facts; which, of course, is why I stopped believing in this god. And, later, after learning more science, I came to stop believing in any kind of god.

Indeed, where is the proof that he existed. Jesus may have been several people.

Very well stated! Many of the things you say have the ring of truth and rational thought.

@Sofabeast it’s pretty well considered that the biblical Jesus is a composite and idealisation of Messianic preachers in C1st Palestine.

@Geoffrey51 I am inclined to adopt that stance on him/them. Now to argue the point with Christians who use the bible as a reference. I do like to make them think.

3

who is Jesus Christ? There is only a fictional jesus, the moniker Christ was adopted by the church authorities who wanted to link the fictional jesus with the prophecies of the old testament that mentioned in greek a Kristos, or annointed one, or messiah. Easy to do after the fact, right?

!00% correct there, the moniker " Christ' was adopted by the Messianics ( later to be recognized as 'Christians/Followers of Christ' ) AFTER the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. ( C.E, as it is called these days) convened by the Pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine.

The word 'Christ' was derived from the Greek word " Kristos" to give false credence to the mythical and founded Jesus stories spread about by the Messianics.

3

First of all, Christ was a creation of Paul, a Greek deity whom he commandeered Jesus to represent that character. Second, there was nothing else.Jesus was a Jew, and he never questioned that. He never claimed to be anything else. Jews have only the one book, what the rest of us call "The Old Testament." The first gospels were written between seventy to one-hundred-ten years after Jesus was killed. And third, Jesus thought he was a messiah in the Jewish tradition... a Davidic character who would restore the temple and rescue Israel from foreign overlords. Those are all very Jewish concepts.

Just to add to that, the original/oldest things state the 'Jesus' said he came only for the jews and also told his follows to not go among the gentiles. Then it is those last couple of versus in the gospel of Mark where he then says to go to the gentiles. Yet, those verses are not in the oldest documents so there for they were added by someone.

3

He was an ultra religious Jew. or at least the person or persons he was based on so of course he would embrace the teachings of the Torah. Why does it matter ?.

Because the The God of the Torah is nonsensical. Why would a supreme being embrace garbage ? It just is more evidence that Christ was not God.

@Dreamrider Not sure what point you are trying to make but for a start the old testament/ Torah is not nonsense. It is very entertaining mythology. The Jews were originally polytheists but gradually adopted monothesism possibly picked up from Mithraism when in exile in Babylonia.
They were a very warlike aquisitive tribe and developed Yaweh as a justification for their behaviour.
In the Jesus timeline Judea was a part of the Roman empire and the Jews longed for a saviour to lead them to their former glories.
The area was awash with holy men and religious sects such as the Essenes and Therapeuts and it is interesting that the name chosen for this savious is Joshua/Jesus, the mythical leader of the Jewish people after Moses died.
Christianity is just a cult/sect that got lucky and the original story has been embellished so much over the years that it is pretty meaningless as a historical story.

3

Actually, he distanced himself from the OT several times, most famously, IMO, when he said "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” – Matthew 5:38–39

He may have distanced himself some but when it came to the Old Testament God, he confirmed his belief.

3

He could not based on the belief system. He was a reformer, not a revolutionary. Paul created Christianity.

3

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. He had absolutely no intention of creating a new religion – that happened without his permission. And the tenets of Christianity are rooted in Judaism – the story of Adam and Eve pointing to the concept of original sin, the various scriptures used to bolster the claim that he's the Messiah, and the idea of sacrifice as an atonement of sins.

Where is your evidence, I'd love to take a look at it. I've often suspected this to be likely.

You’re right of course. I could never accept a Jesus who accepted the Old Testament with all its inconsistencies and obvious falsehoods.

@Sofabeast that's going to take a while to compile – what kind of evidence are you looking for?

@altschmerz Anything I can quote that gives some decent references. Part of my work takes me to an American style evangelical church a couple of times a month, and I just like to sow the odd seed of discontent here and there. Just dropping the odd comment or question. Anything to push their preachers buttons innocently of course.

@altschmerz thanks

@Sofabeast not quite sure exactly what you're looking for, but here's what I have so far.

Isaiah 7:14 supposedly predicted the virgin birth: [ehrmanblog.org]

Psalm 22 predicted the crucifixion: [patheos.com]

Jeremiah 31:15 predicted the mass slaughter of children by Herod.
Christian reading: [evidenceunseen.com]
Jewish reading: [thetorah.com]

Micah 5:2 predicted he'd be born in Bethlehem: [skepticsannotatedbible.com]

Hosea 11:1 predicted his stay in Egypt.
Christian reading: [skepticsannotatedbible.com]
Jewish reading: [jewsforjudaism.org]

Here are a few links talking about the Old Testament and Jesus:
[jewsforjudaism.org]
[jewishvoice.org]
[books.google.com]

I'll get back to you shortly with a little more.

@altschmerz Thank you. One day I really should read the bible... hang on, I may have to for next years sociology studies! We're doing religion and society. Maybe I'll squeeze the Quorhan in as well.

@Sofabeast I haven't read it, but I really like this author (he's an atheist). [gilgamesh-publishing.co.uk]

@Sofabeast I looked up original sin, and was surprised to find that, even though it references Adam and Eve, it's not really Biblical and Jews don't believe in it – although Jewish posters on this site have said as much, I now realize.

[en.wikipedia.org]
Romans 5:12
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."

According to the Jesus scholar Geza Vermes:
Paul believed that Adam's transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort.

The formalized Christian doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, in his struggle against Gnosticism. Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.

[jesuswordsonly.com]
God in the Original Testament contradicts this inherited guilt principle in Deut 24:16 and Ezek 18:20. Children do not inherit their father's guilt. Also, children are born innocent without knowing good from evil.  Deut 1:39; Isaiah 7:14-16. As we said earlier, Jesus in Matt 18:3 also implied children were innocent, and encouraged us to become like children, or otherwise “you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 18:3.

And here's a couple of records of blood sacrifice in the OT.
[debunking-christianity.com]
[ajol.info]

So have fun bringing any of this up at the church you visit, lol.

2

Religious books are just story books, they change over time to suit the needs of the powerful so of course the Old Testament has been kept in the Bible. Jesus is just a character in the story book for Christians, that's why he can be black or white or even a bit jewish looking, although is quite infrequent as who on earth would want to worship a guy who looked jewish as their savior, certainly not the Christian Right. lol
It is much easier to manipulate the majority of the population into doing cruel and heinous acts like war and oppression and sexism if you keep around texts from the Bronze Age like the Old Testament. As for Jesus, well he's just like any other imaginary friend - hopefully you outgrow them and learn to stand on your own two feet like an adult.

2

I think a man existed during that time period, one of many, roaming the countryside preaching to people. This was not a divine person, just a human...they all were. Years and years later, humans (men) combined some of these roaming preachers into the figure and tale of "Jesus." They wrote the bible and proceeded to duped the rest of us, get rich, and control us for eons.

2

I would say an equally big threat to the credibility of Christ is his portrayal as a blue-eyed, white man - as in the picture included in this post.

2

The O;d Testament was written by the Jews, for the Jews. Along come the Xians and they say "We like this basic idea but we need a softer, less bloodthirsty psychopath to be God and he needs a son who's perfect and loving around whom we can build our faith so we're gonna tweak your book a bit and call it New."

The Jews shoulda charged the Xians a perpetual licensing fee for the use of their book. It woulda been worth billions across centuries. How did the Jews miss that -- they're Jews, for Crissakes!

Okay, that was moderately racist but still.

That was funny and acceptable because it’s pure fantasy.

2

No, wouldn’t work like that. The Christ of NT was the culmination of the Messianic ideal. Take away the rabbinical teachings and Christ is not in the frame. As @altsmerz points out, Jesus was not a reformer. He falls into the category of Messianic preacher

1

Debate ongoing: did Jesus even exist? Some say no.
This is a highly religious topic and I don't believe in god, the friggin bible nor god having a son. Someone didn't want to tell their mommy she got preggers and made up the entire holier than thou story accepted without question by believers who need something called faith to get sucked into that vacuum.

1

There is a great deal of discussion here about whether or not christ was real, was he invented by Paul or a composite developed by various authors over the ages.

To me this is a moot point. There is wisdom in some parts of the NT. It is like a smorgasbord--you take what you like & leave the rest.

Philosophy & literature through the ages is filled with wise & beautiful passages, much of it mouthed by fictional characters. The reality of christ has no bearing on the value of what he is reported as saying.

You must decide what to believe. Gautama Buddha said,

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

1

According to original language and concepts Jesus would be a superhuman elohim angel. Lord of host Lucifer the devil.

Word Level 8 Sep 12, 2019

I thought I asked you to leave me out of your posts and to stop spreading lies about me, Shannon.

1

I think Jesus would have had zero credibility with Jews who he was supposed to have come to if he had not embraced the Old Testament. These books were the only scriptures at the time since all of the New Testament was written after he died.

I'm not convinced that much of anything written about Jesus is trustworthy, and I think Paul had much more influence over Christian doctrine thsn Jesus. The Gospels wrre all written decades after Jesus' death and Luke as well as the Book of Acts are believed to have been written by a companion of Paul. About a third of Paul's letters are understood by biblicsl scholars as being forgeries (not written or dictated by Paul). Given these facts, we can't say that Jesus was a chrismatic Jewish preacher whose cause was taken up by Paul and adapted to his sense of what it should be and Jesus (who Paul never met while he was alive) and his life was created and embellished to meet Paul's need.

Paulinity is a truer name.

1

I have not read all the comments, but there is NO chance; none whatsoever that Jesus ever existed. Don't read the bible, read the history of the bible. Dan Barker is very good at explaining how Christ never existed. Read his book "Godless". (read all his other books too)

John G Jackson American Atheist Press 4 decades ago authored the same overview of literature from India to Morocco....zero baby gawds anywhere in between

1

nope. not even a little bit. first of all, his name wasn't jesus christ (christ being a mistranslation of messiah, which does NOT mean christ or savior, and jesus being a greek name). second of all, he probably never existed. and third of all, daily judaism never was, and certainly isn't, based on a literal reading of the old testament. all the stuff jesus is credited with inventing came from the judaism of his time and before it too. the last supper was a passover seder. i speak of this as i would speak of any work of fiction, of course. but why bother? his most fatal flaw is not existing, not having existed and not even being portrayed today as he was originally portrayed, albeit fictionally. he has no credibility to be ruined.

g

By documentaries I have seen, the name historians give the man is Yeshua - in English, Joshua. "Christ," means, "anointed one," in Greek. "Messiah," means the same in Hebrew.

1

I am always amazed that all the pictures we see of Jesus where he is portrayed as a white man.

Naturally, all those pictures were painted in Europe after his "teachings" made it to Europe. So, a white god. god made in man's (European) image

1

I often wonder from a work of fiction, cobbled together by rich folk to keep the masses happy and believe the lies that were and still are propagated today to manipulate people into believing in higher things ect...I need to write me a best seller like that....lol

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:400269
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.